Rome – Society of Saint Pius X: Press review
Rome – Society of Saint Pius X: Press review
20-04-2012
Filed under From Tradition, News
For lack of reliable information about authenticated facts, the press is devising hypotheses about an imminent canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X. Journalists are attempting to specify a time-frame and are striving to discern the reasons that Benedict XVI might have to grant a canonical status to the Society, despite the doctrinal differences recognized by both parties.
The German magazine Der Spiegel, in its online edition dated April 15, 2012, claims that the pope’s decision will be communicated after his birthday (April 16): “In the Vatican’s Secretariat of State—the source of several documents that were leaked in recent months in the so-called ‘Vatileaks’ scandal—has classified the SSPX letter as secret, and the issue is being handled with the utmost discretion. It is only to be made public following the pope’s birthday celebrations.”
Earlier that week, on April 13, the French daily newspaper Le Figaro reported on a response received by a Roman source: “Officially, the Vatican awaits the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the Lefebvrists. As soon as it is received in Rome—‘It is a matter of days, and no longer of weeks,’ someone at the Vatican said—it will be examined ‘immediately’. If it conforms to expectations, the Holy See will very quickly announce a historic agreement….”
On April 17, the Vatican-watcher Andrea Tornielli over-hastily declared that Bishop Fellay sent a “positive response” to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whereas it was actually a set of clarifications that the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X was adding to his response to the Doctrinal Preamble, at the request of Cardinal Levada on March 16 of this year. These clarifications must now be examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then submitted for the pope’s decision.
All observers acknowledge that the doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X manifested profound disagreement about the Second Vatican Council. On April 14, Jean Mercier of the progressive weekly La Vie, painted this picture on his blog: “Is the pope really fooled into thinking that the Lefebvrists are willing to be reconciled in depth with the Universal Church? Without prejudging the latter’s purity of intention, it is obvious that they have never disavowed their basic stance against the Council and that they will never do so. The request for the lifting of the excommunications was not accompanied by any repentance for their disobedience in 1988. Since then the integrist bishops and priests have multiplied their statements declaring that they have never changed their minds and that they intend to continue their battle against the Council, and especially against religious liberty, interreligious and ecumenical dialogue.
“In all probability, the pope granted the remission of the excommunications in 2009 with an awareness of this lack of repentance—which is contrary to what would normally occur within the context of the confessional, in which contrition, even imperfect contrition, is required. But the stakes here are more political…. The pope probably has few illusions about the calculated strategy of those, the more moderate ones, who would be ready to rejoin Rome: to lead a crusade within the Church so as to bring her back to the ‘true’ faith, banking on the erosion or disappearance of the generations that brought us the Council and the postconciliar period.
“Benedict XVI no doubt thought that he had to wink at the certain impenitence of his interlocutors. And he decided to go beyond what is an inescapable fact: the total disagreement between him and the integrists about essential elements such as religious liberty, ecumenism and dialogue with other religions. Even at the risk of not being understood by his base.”
Jean-Marie Guénois in Le Figaro (April 14-15) suggests that the situation can be deciphered as follows: “The apparent failure of the latter [the theological talks], one year ago, had given the impression of a complete failure of the negotiation. The doctrinal disagreement between the Lefebvrists and Rome regarding the Second Vatican Council was effectively abysmal. But it had been forgotten that the object of those conversations was not finding an agreement, but establishing the list of differences and of the reasons for them.
“It is therefore with full knowledge and, thus, without any ambiguity, that Rome intends to seal this unity found once again with Écône, stronghold of the Lefebvrists in Switzerland. It will probably be done with the creation of a special status—a ‘personal prelature’—already experienced by Opus Dei. This structure grants a true autonomy of action seeing that the Catholic faith is shared. Its superior answers directly to the pope, and not to the bishops.
“But the true ‘revolution’ that Benedict XVI seeks to allow in the sight of Catholic Church history is elsewhere. It touches on aspects of the Catholic Church that are not peripheral. These have already enraged the groups opposed to this reconciliation. The so-called “Progressives” of the Conciliar Church who see the ‘gains’ of Vatican II called into question. The ‘ultras’ within the Lefebvrist ranks who see in this a betrayal and a compromise with Modernist Rome.
“This revolution aims for broader vision of the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI, the theologian, has never accepted that in 1962 the bi-millennial Catholic Church would have cut herself off from the culture and strength of her past. More than a reconciliation with the Lefebvrists, he aims, with this gesture, at a reconciliation of the Catholic Church with herself.”
The above-cited online edition of Der Spiegel dated April 15, without indicating its sources, gives this analysis that is supposedly making the rounds in Rome: “The letter makes clear that conflicting positions on Vatican II are ‘not decisive’ for the future of the Catholic Church, because the Church is more than the Council. The Society of St. Pius X is no longer demanding that the Vatican II reforms be repealed. [It never took that position. – Editor’s note.] Indeed, it has its own legitimate understanding of the question.… The German Cardinal Josef Becker, an advisor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a participant in the talks with the SSPX, said recently that it is difficult to find common ground in the positions held by the Catholic Church and the Society of St. Pius X. But, he added, each side must ‘try to understand’ the other. He also said that the Church must re-examine all Vatican II documents to understand them fully from today’s perspective.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, who sticks exclusively to reality, wrote on April 14 to the members of the Society of Saint Pius X: “The press is reporting the possibility of an imminent positive outcome in our relations with Rome, without however ruling out the threat of a definitive condemnation. The truth is that nothing has been gained, neither along the lines of a canonical recognition, nor along the lines of a rupture, and that we are still awaiting developments.
“As I wrote in the editorial of the current issue of Cor unum [the newsletter of the General House of the SSPX, Editor’s note], we are guided by two principles: the first is that the Society must not be asked to make concessions concerning the faith and what results from it (liturgy, sacraments, morality, discipline). The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action must be granted to the Society so as to allow it to live and develop in concrete circumstances.”
The prudence and vigilance of the Superior General of the Society are understandable when one knows that currently posted at several European websites is a Note from the Ecclesia Dei Commission dated March 23, following their canonical visitation to the Institut du Bon Pasteur [Good Shepherd Institute, a society of apostolic life in France]. In this document we can read that the professors of the seminary in Courtalain must direct their efforts “concerning the transmission of the Church’s patrimony in its entirety, while insisting on the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity and relying on Catholic doctrine as a whole as set forth by theCatechism of the Catholic Church,” rather than on “a critique of Vatican II, even a ‘serious and constructive’ one”. This is a critique that theologian John R. T. Lamong, professor at the Catholic Institute in Sydney, nevertheless invites us to make, by posing questions about the Magisterial authority of Vatican II than second the questions of the Society of Saint Pius X. (Read “The questions of a theologian”)
(Sources : Figaro/Vie/Spiegel/FSSPX-MG – DICI no.253 dated April 20, 2012)
Link: http://www.dici.org/en/news/romesociety-of-saint-pius-x-press-review/
Views: 140
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on
-
That Menzingen complains because speculation is at an all time high is ridiculous.
Tell your priests and fellow bishops, and for that matter even the lowly laity what you are up dear Bishop Fellay whilst you deal with a masonic Rome and most of this nonsense would cease.
Why do you continue to hide everything from them?
Sorry but you bring all this on yourself.
If you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to hide.
-
-
A Key to Pope Benedict XVI
The Oath Against Modernism vs. the "Hermeneutic of Continuity”
by John Vennari
The term “Hermeneutic of Continuity” came into vogue with the ascension of Pope Benedict XVI.
On December 22, 2005 in his speech to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict XVI laid out what would be the program of his pontificate. Usually a Pope will do this in his first encyclical, but informed commentators at the time observed that Pope Benedict appeared to lay out the program for his pontificate in this December 22 address, and not his first encyclical.
In this speech, it is clear that the pivotal principle that would be the program for his pontificate is the Second Vatican Council.[1]
However, says the Pope, there has been a problem with the Council. Too many in the Church, he laments, approach the Council through a “hermeneutic of rupture”; and a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” with the past. (“Hermeneutic” basically means, “interpretation”. Thus, Pope Benedict says, many Catholics have approached the Council with an interpretation of rupture with the past.)
The proper way to approach the Council, he insists, is through a “hermeneutic of continuity”. His basic claim — and this has always been his claim as Cardinal Ratzinger — is that Vatican II did not constitute a rupture with Tradition, but a legitimate development of it. We can find this legitimate development if we approach the Council through a hermeneutic — an interpretation — of continuity.
This gives the impression to many that Pope Benedict XVI plans a restoration of Tradition in the Church.
But this is not the case. Yes, Pope Benedict issued the Motu Proprio freeing the Tridentine Mass. This was a matter of justice for which he deserves credit, and it is something we could have guessed he would do, even based on his statements as Cardinal Ratzinger.
But the hermeneutic of continuity does not signal a return to Tradition. Rather, it is another attempt, first and foremost, I believe, to save Vatican II.
Vatican II is still his pivotal principle. The so-called “hermeneutic of continuity” approach will give us nothing more than a new synthesis between Tradition and Vatican II — a synthesis between Tradition and Modernism — which is not a legitimate synthesis.
Novel Approach
Initially I want to focus on just one aspect that tells us from the beginning that the “hermeneutic of continuity” approach does not signal a true restoration of Tradition. This is the term itself. Pope Benedict does not employ the Traditional terminology for the preservation of Tradition, but has effectively invented a new term: “hermeneutic of continuity”.
This is because his approach to Tradition is at odds with what the Church taught for 2000 years.
For example, Pope Benedict XVI never says that the answer to the crisis in the Church is to return the admonition of Pope Agatho who said “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[2]
Pope Benedict never says that the answer to today’s ecclesiastical chaos is to return to the formula contained in the Oath Against Modernism, that the Catholic is bound to
“... sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.”[3]
He cannot use terminology like this because it conflicts with the new teachings of Vatican II, with the new teachings concerning religious liberty and ecumenism. These new teachings are clearly “different from the one which the Church held previously.”[4]
When Pope St. Pius X was battling to maintain Catholic truth and Tradition, he did not come up with his own original phrase in the Oath Against Modernism. The terminology he employed is the ancient terminology of the Church, found in the writings of the Fathers, and enshrined in infallible dogmatic definitions that a Catholic must believe for salvation.
As far back as the 4th Century, St. Vincent of Lerins explained what constitutes the proper development of Catholic doctrine:
“But perhaps some will say: Is there to be no progress of religion in the Church? There is, certainly, and very great ... But it must be a progress and not a change. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and in all times, increase and flourish in abundance; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one in the same sense, and one in the same judgment.”[5]
-
-
"Here arrives a comment concerning our puzzle from Fr. Loran on behalf of Menzingen, with an extra mystery to boot in that the DICI text below carries an added explanation not found in Spiegel's English-language translation of Wensierski's article - "because the Church is more than the Council".
http://www.dici.org/en/news/romesociety-of...x-press-review/
"The above-cited online edition of Der Spiegel dated April 15, without indicating its sources, gives this analysis that is supposedly making the rounds in Rome: “The letter makes clear that conflicting positions on Vatican II are ‘not decisive’ for the future of the Catholic Church, because the Church is more than the Council. The Society of St. Pius X is no longer demanding that the Vatican II reforms be repealed. [It never took that position. – Editor’s note.] Indeed, it has its own legitimate understanding of the question....."
The DICI summary does not object that Wensierski has written falsely but appears, with the added correction or explanation to the text, to affirm the accuracy of Wensierski's claim to know the content of Bishop Fellay's response to Benedict.
Furthermore, Fr. Loran adds an editorial note stating that it has never been the position of SSPX to repeal, what he terms, Vatican II reforms.
[...]
I think that Bishops Tissier de Mallerais and Williamson would not agree and I am equally sure that Bishop de Galarreta has stated much the same as his two episcopal confrères.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
"I will say, one day the Church should erase this Council. She will not speak of it anymore. She must forget it. The Church will be wise if she forgets this council... Forget it, yes. As a blank – tabula rasa".
Bishop Williamson
"Therefore the Catholic Church, to save souls, must throw out every single paragraph of Vatican II, and have no further truck with, nor mercy upon, the miserable principles of modernity"."This declaration was clearly written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Nothing in principle has changed and it remains today the charter of our fight".
- Fr. Arnauld Rostand
http://www.cfnews.org/rostand-int-film.htm
Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, November 21, 1974
The "Charter" of SSPX
"... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform...".
Declaration of DICI, Official Voice of Menzingen, April 20, 2012
"It never took that position".
-
-
Monday
Bishop de Galarreta's view on the negotiations with Rome
August 1, 2001
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
In all the series of contacts between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) since June of last year, we had hardly heard in public from the SSPX bishop residing in Spain, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, until there began circulating recently the text of a sermon he gave at the SSPX's main seminary in Switzerland on June 3.
When "nice" liberals make a "practical" offer, he says, it will still be a nasty offer. That is why the SSPX was right to refuse Rome's recent offer, even if not all contacts with Rome need be cut off. Let me translate his text for you, while abbreviating and adapting certain parts to bring out his interesting analysis. Bishop de Galarreta speaks: -
"…..From the beginning of these contacts with Rome, the SSPX wished to get into the major questions of doctrine and theology, faith and apostasy, while Rome wanted to give the contacts a purely practical character. We then somewhat lost interest because we knew where that would end up... Sure enough. To the two pre-conditions laid down by the SSPX for the resumption of SSPX-Rome discussions (liberation of the Tridentine Mass, nullification of the 1998 excommunications), Rome at last replied officially a few weeks ago by implicitly laying down its same old condition for the SSPX's `re-integration', namely acceptance of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.. In other words Rome would accept the SSPX as it stands, so long as it stopped opposing the Conciliar Revolution.
"But the SSPX as it stands is bound to oppose the Council. So Rome would be granting everything to the SSPX while taking it all away. Truly a fool's bargain! For Rome began by saying, `Let us be practical and not doctrinal. Come in!' The SSPX replied, `Fine! To be practical and not doctrinal, let us come in as we are, opposing the Council'. To which Rome replied, `To be practical and not doctrinal, come in as you are but do not oppose the Council'. We had, of course, run right back into the problem of Catholic doctrine against Conciliar doctrine. `Practicality' was a mirage.
"It was only to be expected. Today's modernists in Rome divide broadly into two groups: on the one hand the theoretical modernists, more logical and more consistently liberal and so less friendly to ourselves; on the other hand the pragmatic or practical modernists, closer to real life and so more friendly to ourselves, but correspondingly less consistent with their liberal principles and therefore objectively (I do not speak about personal sincerity or intentions) more false and two-faced in their dealings with ourselves.
"So when last year one of Rome's practical modernists made us an apparently golden offer, the danger was not of the SSPX giving way in theory or in doctrine, because for all of us the doctrine of Tradition is beyond doubt or question. The great danger was rather of our giving way in practice by taking our desires for reality, by thinking that liberals (modernists) really can be nice, by believing that Rome was offering us what it really was not offering us, namely their acceptance of us on our own terms. In fact, as this official answer at last made clear, they will accept Tradition only on the Council's terms. Rome having said it, at last things are now clear. It's a shame, but that's how it is.
"As for Rome's offer being merely `practical', remember that it was by mere `practicality' that modernism was foisted upon the Catholic Church in the 1960's and 1970's. Take for example the New Mass. It was a select group of theologians and liturgists who concocted it almost out of thin air, and when Msgr. Bugnini presented it to Catholic bishops in 1967, it was rejected by a large majority. Yet it was the selfsame rite of Mass that Paul VI forced upon the Church in 1969, because a select few had constructed their new liturgy to fit their new religion, unwanted in the cry by the mass of faithful, priests and bishops. But since this mass of Catholics out of obedience then practiced the new liturgy, so they came to accept and to believe in the new religion. Doctrinal Modernism had triumphed by `practicality'. Cranmer used exactly the same `practicality' to enable Protestant doctrine to take over the Church in England in the 16 century.
"Now Rome is trying to do the same thing again. The SSPX is to be granted everything in theory, so long as it accepts the Council in practice. That is like saying to policemen, `Talk as much as you like in theory against theft and crime, but do not lay a finger on any thief or criminal. They have their rights, and in practice they must be left to do what they want'. It is like telling the SSPX, `Play Don Quixote to your heart's content, tilt at all the theoretical windmills you wish, but do not touch the practical realities'.
"But the SSPX cannot accept such a ‘practical’ deal. In practice, modernist Rome is destroying the Faith. It is not a problem of persons or obedience or charity or discipline or respect or whatever. IT IS A PRACTICAL PROBLEM OF THE FAITH. We can accept no ‘practical agreement’ which would mean silencing the voice of Tradition, the voice of the Catholic Faith. We can only defend the Truth, yet the Truth is what Rome is asking us to keep quiet. That is why we can only refuse Rome's `practical' offer.
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
